# Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

• What do you think "Red: Fletcher scaled to Prominent at .5 bar" refers to? I think you are the confused one here. Please check with Alan.

I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

My outlet arm was on a pivot, so I could lower it below the outlet. It worked for a small amount, but then the pump valves failed to seat -- I could hear them rattling. Also note that my long outlet tube will give some natural "frictional" back-pressure.

b) Prominent provides values from 2 bar (spec at which minimum 32l/h is guaranteed) to 0.5 bar. ORANGE
I measured from 0.5 bar (the height of my tower) down to 0 (outlet level with head) BLUE

At the common point ... 0.5 bar my pump is under-performing.

To get THAT point on my curve to match Prominent's value, I have to SCALE it by 1.17

I apply that scaling value to my measured data (BLUE) to give my SCALED data (RED).

I see no reason not to trust a linear scaling for back-pressure below that point.

• I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

62*24*24 = 35712

35712 < 36000

That's why you don't have any Quatloos. You lost the bet.

But again, the whole premise is absurd that there is zero outlet pressure and maxed out precise measuring pumps, and you ignore the evidence that one BF was offline for months (at least), that the imaginary steam could some how precipitate, that the enormous heat given off by this precipitation (1MW) could be handled in shipping container, and you still don't quite meet the mark even after all that.

The evidence that Rossi created an elaborate electrically heated 20KW teapot doing a rather pathetic charade of a 1MW plant is staring you in the face, even by evidence that you helped obtain.

• Yeah, you guys pin-pointed a time period in the log that doesn't match up. Okay, well done. But most of the data comports.

What about Oct 14 2015? This is the day after the day when you think that the 36,000 L/d figure must be mistaken. On Oct 14 Penon's spreadsheets report that the ECat system absorbed power at an average rate of 11470.8 W. On Oct 14 it was 11483.3 W. What do you think? Do you think that the extra 12.5 W reflects the BF4 being put back online? Penon says that 36,000 L was pumped on both days. Do you think that the Oct 14 figure might be mistaken too?

• Thanks Alan for confirming that the red data points are estimates, as I said, and not actual empirically obtained results. And also, thanks for all the time and effort that you put into this.

I agree that a linear scaling was not an unreasonable way to estimate performance as a first order approximation.

That said, I can think of lots of reasons why linear scaling would not apply to performance at these extreme conditions of zero outlet pressure which are outside the manufacturers rated specifications. We just don't know, and certainly making linear assumptions under these extreme conditions would not meet any engineering standards. (And I'm not at all insinuating that you are asserting that, I'm just stating it for the record).

• I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

Just for the record, you meant to write "I stand corrected Sig", right?

Freudian slip?

EDIT: I see now that you corrected yourself upthread. Thanks!

• That said, I can think of lots of reasons why linear scaling would not apply to performance at these extreme conditions of zero outlet pressure which are outside the manufacturers rated specifications. We just don't know, and certainly making linear assumptions under these extreme conditions would not meet any engineering standards. (And I'm not at all insinuating that you are asserting that, I'm just stating it for the record).

For one example, at least one of the manuals suggests that the 0232 pump overpumps fluid vs metering settings until reaching operating temperature (3 hrs running at max stroke with 20 C water)

• Just for the record, you meant to write "I stand corrected Sig", right?

Freudian slip?

EDIT: I see now that you corrected yourself upthread. Thanks!

Ha ha, yes. For the record, I stood corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains, that Alan's measured values essentially match the ~27k l/d and ~36k l/d log values. Whether the 4th BF was taken offline for two days or months is up for question. We have witnesses stating it was offline for at least one day. There are always alternative explanations for just about everything. For example, whoever was writing down the flow rates might have just mind-numbingly copied 36,000 for the next few months, when it was actually 27,000.

Ask yourself this: what are the chances that Alan's measured numbers would NEAR EXACTLY match the 27k l/d and 36k l/d values. Don't you find that extremely interesting?

• Ha ha, yes. For the record, I stood corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains, that Alan's measured values essentially match the ~27k l/d and ~36k l/d log values. Whether the 4th BF was taken offline for two days or months is up for question. We have witnesses stating it was offline for at least one day. There are always alternative explanations for just about everything. For example, whoever was writing down the flow rates might have just mind-numbingly copied 36,000 for the next few months, when it was actually 27,000.

Ask yourself this: what are the chances that Alan's measured numbers would NEAR EXACTLY match the 27k l/d and 36k l/d values. Don't you find that extremely interesting?

No, not in context. Because: 1) it's absurd to have zero back pressure in a working fluid circuit, 2) it's absurd to have all dosimetric pumps at 100%, and 3) it's absurd to think that the flow rate of 36000 would be as steady as reported given all the testimony of leaks, breakdowns, shutdowns, etc. 4) its absurd to think that the return pipe was full in a known gravity return, and 5) it has been demonstrated and is repeatable that flow rates of 5X to 10x will occur in partially filled pipes. There are more reasons than this, but that's a start.

• Great discussion. For those like myself trying to keep up, please refer to Document #235-10:

It is Rick Smith's report, in which he uses photos of the Doral warehouse for perspective, diagrams to explain steam operation principles/ terms, and schematic's of the plumbing involved between the 1MW and JMP's "black box".

Very simple to understand.

• No, not in context. Because: 1) it's absurd to have zero back pressure in a working fluid circuit, 2) it's absurd to have all dosimetric pumps at 100%, and 3) it's absurd to think that the flow rate of 36000 would be as steady as reported given all the testimony of leaks, breakdowns, shutdowns, etc. 4) its absurd to think that the return pipe was full in a known gravity return, and 5) it has been demonstrated and is repeatable that flow rates of 5X to 10x will occur in partially filled pipes. There are more reasons than this, but that's a start.

1) No it isn't. You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

2) No it isn't. I can easily see Rossi just setting them to max settings and letting them run.

3) The flow rate varies. Look at the tapestry of data. And they are clearly rounding. And in some cases, they are probably mindlessly copying the same value from one day to the next.

4) The return pipe doesn't need to be full. Jed makes this same mistake. How do you know whether it is purely a gravity return? That's not what the record indicates.

5) Murray had a setup of his own that didn't match the Doral setup. He even admitted this in his depo. The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes. Rossi's attorney hit Murray over the head with it.

• The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes.

No it does not. The flow meter MUST be full. The error bars were for low flow velocity errors, caused by poor water traction on the impeller.

The impeller (which spins the counter) turns by water flow, and the water meter is calibrated to a full level only, and measures the water amount by the velocity of water passing through the calibrated minimum cross section of the meter. If the water meter is partially full, the water volume changes, but the meter cannot tell how full it is, and will report the same amount of water passing through it no matter if it is full, 1/2 full, or 1/4 full, at the same water velocity.

.

• Can we take this as the definitive picture of the Doral 1MW in operation?

Note : ALL pumps have a green light ... this is only on DURING a pulse. (For an exposure of longer than 1/180 sec you will always record at least one flash). So all pumps are operational.

BF1 is at the top, BF4 at the bottom.
There are six Prominents per BF : Lets label them A to F (my initials!) left-to-right eg BF1A BF1B .....

Q1 : are there other views taken at the same time? Links, please!

Q2: there are reportedly photos taken by IH after the trial (was that the site visit during the trial?). Ditto & likewise.

• 1) No it isn't. You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

2) No it isn't. I can easily see Rossi just setting them to max settings and letting them run.

3) The flow rate varies. Look at the tapestry of data. And they are clearly rounding. And in some cases, they are probably mindlessly copying the same value from one day to the next.

4) The return pipe doesn't need to be full. Jed makes this same mistake. How do you know whether it is purely a gravity return? That's not what the record indicates.

5) Murray had a setup of his own that didn't match the Doral setup. He even admitted this in his depo. The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes. Rossi's attorney hit Murray over the head with it.

OK, this is all feeling very familiar. It has been fun rehashing, and we both know where we stand. So for new readers I'll give it one more shot and then I've got to move on for now to do real work.

1) It cannot easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side and simultaneously be a "working fluid circuit". You don't know what your talking about. If you took sophomore level engineering thermodynamics, you would understand why.

2) Using precision dosimetric pumps all set to 100% makes no sense.

3) The flow rate is unrealistic in that it varies very little. Thanks for admitting that "mindlessly copying" is a reasonable and likely alternate explanation.

4) We know that it was a gravity return because of the open to the air tank return tank (see photos).

5) If the return pipe is not full, it WILL measure incorrectly - the manufacturer states this explicitly in their specs.

And we haven't re-litigated the imaginary heat exchanger, the pipe strips, the fake engineer, insulation on significant portions of the serpentine pipe in the JM-side container (??), the Grundfos pump, etc.

But alas, I'm out of time, so new readers will have to jump back to those discussions if interested.

• You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

Actually, there needs to be a rather strong vacuum if the steam to water trick can be considered at all feasible. Strong enough that pumping anything out of it might be a big problem.

• The Water Meter error bar images (one marked up by me for clarity) are these: (note they are general approximation, across all models)

• The problem with all this is that they should have measured the steam flow out of the system not the water out of the customer's box. That would mean a steam water separator before the flow meter. It does not matter much how much water flowed out of the customer's box only how much steam (sans water) was delivered to the box. If they did that, then the water flow rate and the temps and pressures would be much less important.

It sure makes you wonder why Rossi would strip the system of such things before setting it up for the customer. I seem to recall that he offered some water flow problems as his explanation. But they never seemed to hold water (pun intended) if there was really a steam pressure.

• It's such a great picture! I think it is the one taken by IH personnel on the final day of the Doral test.

I don't think that the green light shows that the units are actually pumping. I think that the they are on, but in STOP mode. Don't forget that I did a "smudge" analysis of this photo to assess this point (see post #684 here Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test)

Also, see the video below

• 1) It cannot easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side and simultaneously be a "working fluid circuit". You don't know what your talking about. If you took sophomore level engineering thermodynamics, you would understand why.

2) Using precision dosimetric pumps all set to 100% makes no sense.

3) The flow rate is unrealistic in that it varies very little. Thanks for admitting that "mindlessly copying" is a reasonable alternate explanation.

4) We know that it was a gravity return because of the open to the air tank return tank (see photos).

5) If the return pipe is not full, it WILL measure incorrectly - the manufacturer states this explicitly in their specs.

1) Yes it can. Perhaps you skipped out on your classes. This is how steam circuits are designed. There is a pump to pump the condensate. This can create a slight vacuum on the outlet of the steam generator.

2) Again, I could easily see Rossi setting it to max, and letting them run.

3) The flow rate jumps quite a bit in the data, with some long stretches of the same rounded values.

4) Show me a photo of the return pipe to the tank. As I recall, we never got access to that. It seems to me it was always on Jed's word. Here is your chance!

5) Touche. Now show me the evidence that the return pipe was not full, besides the waterline schtick, which could have been formed at any stage with standing water, and does not mean that the water level was always at the supposed water line mark. And I don't think we ever saw photos of this either.